I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.

Now, if you're an amateur who has no real interest in making an effort toward serious art, then it seems that a convergence camera may have some utility -- it's like those old 8mm cameras that our parents used to shoot movies of us, splashing in inflatable pools in the backyard. The films won't be very good, but they might have a certain snapshot-like utility. They may also be fine for such things as single-point-of-view instructional videos, but even those become kind of boring after a few minutes of viewing, perhaps because we're so used to professionally made videos with lots of both conceptual and technical quality.

But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using. I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.

But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.

well, well... now you want to do serious stills, right ? so you start adding tripods, ballheads, camera plates, flashes, etc, etc... not much different from adding steadycams and "contraptions"

PS: "I believe that Adobe Lightroom is a good example of a product that achieves the goal of simplicity at a reasonable price."... indeed, why do we need all those LuLa video tutorials beats me.

"There are a number companies and products (some of which are extremely complicated) that seem to consistently achieve the goal of simplicity.

The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "

so, either you are pregnant or not... either you need a manual (for LR and hence LR does not achieve a "goal of simplicity") or not...

The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "

Amateur still photographer here who's beginning to open his eyes to decidedly amateur/consumer video......

I want as much convergence as I can, so that means I have as much functionality as possible without having to forget features or buy multiple systems (unfortunately, for me we're not there yet- but if the EM-1 had video focus peaking and Panny's 2.6X focus thing, IMO we would be).

That being said, I agree with Mark's overall point - these cameras and interfaces are poorly designed. Sometimes that's a matter of poor vision, other times it's just a function of all the features that are crammed into these machines. I can understand the appeal of the Fuji X series or Leica - even though they both seem now to do video - in that they have all the old controls everyone used back in film days. If it's not broke, don't fix it, and if you need to add features, don't take away what you already have.....

I don't necessarily share Mark's views. Regarding video I think it is a bless. I often present my pictures as slide shows and video adds aspects you cannot capture in stills. Video doesn't make the camera more complicated. It needs an extra button. Now, that button may be badly placed, and it may be preferably lockable.

I have a strong preference for cameras having presets, preferably selectable with a switch. For instance, when I shoot on tripod I normally want:

I never read or use a Sony manual. They are completely useless. There are some good books by Gary Friedman that I carry on my iPad.

I also have a preference for programmable buttons and controls.

One thing I miss is that I would like to connect up the camera to a computer, configure it's presets and save my settings as a humanly readable file.

There are things that are horribly stupid. My camera has separate video modes, a special position on the control wheel. But viewfinder image magnification doesn't work in video mode. You need to switch to stills to have 11x image magnification and switch back to film mode, stupid!

I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.

Now, if you're an amateur who has no real interest in making an effort toward serious art, then it seems that a convergence camera may have some utility -- it's like those old 8mm cameras that our parents used to shoot movies of us, splashing in inflatable pools in the backyard. The films won't be very good, but they might have a certain snapshot-like utility. They may also be fine for such things as single-point-of-view instructional videos, but even those become kind of boring after a few minutes of viewing, perhaps because we're so used to professionally made videos with lots of both conceptual and technical quality.

But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using. I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.

To me an image only is an image when I have printed it and I can hang it on a wall.It has something to do with an aspect of art which has something to do with transcendence,eternal truths, universality and this kind of stuff, if you know what I mean.

Web imaging surely is sort of fun, User Critiques forum is fun, but for me a real image is on paper.

I think thats one reason, why I can't connect to video - its too electronic, too virtual and unsubstantial for me.

I'm still shooting mostly analogue and I will switch to digital - but only to print in the end.

The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "

Except there are hundreds of buttons and controls, they just happen to be via software, so that is a non-argument. Not only that but there are numerous different paradigms of how they, the apps that is, work too.Not to mention that there are many features of iOS that you tend to only find out when someone shows you. Unless of course you are the sort of person who will experiment with every possible combination tap/button/push/slide - i.e. not the average user. Most users of most computers of all kinds know only a fraction of what they can do. I know iOS pretty well, but whenever the OS updates I always scour t'interweb for the little hidden tricks and tips that can make using my tablet or phone easier and actually installed a manual to read when I first got an iPhone.

Quote

so, either you are pregnant or not... either you need a manual (for LR and hence LR does not achieve a "goal of simplicity") or not...

Doing very complex tasks using a programme that make doing those complex tasks easier, doesn't necessarily remove the complexity. Take Photoshop and a single layer in the layers panel which is very simple really, but even just duplicating that one layer a few times and playing with various blending modes, transparency means you quickly end up with a very large number of permutations and combinations. I've always said that PS or Lightroom are fundamentally very easy programmes to learn in respect of how things function, but the complexity is in the incredibly large number of ways in which you can use the functionality.I can show someone relatively quickly what LR or PS does, but showing them when to do stuff takes a lot longer and that's why there are lot's of useful guides and tutorials like LuLa's on software such as LR. Also LR is much easier to use than PS for certain tasks because it was designed to work in a different way - a way that suited overall adjustment of large numbers of images. This simplification of tasks doesn't necessarily equate to simple though.

I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.

Quite right there's no way anyone would make feature films with say a 5DII or use it for one of the world's most popular TV dramas. Oh wait they already did that and they looked great too.

Quote

But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using.

As Mark inaccurately writes you mean. He confuses bad design with complexity. Not to mention the he completely ignores the fact that P+S cameras aimed at amateurs not interested in fiddling with fancy cameras have had video from the word go and yet they were never seen as complicated. Mark does not need video, so creates a bogus argument to exclude it from cameras.

Quote

I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000.

Shooting complex multi flash setup s is completely different from shooting by natural light, so what?

To be fair to Mark Dubovoy, his essay wasn't totally against other people's use of "non-dedicated video cameras" -- "While I welcome the possibility of shooting video and stills from a smart phone or other small devices, and while I can certainly understand that certain segments of the market such as wedding photographers like to shoot video and stills with the same device..."

2. ... The automation and "features" are ... secondly computerized crutches to overcome a lack of technical knowledge.

So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)

... Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)

You should rail against automatic transmissions if you prefer manual and automatic is all that's available.

I have no problem with automatic features allowing people to make better photos as long as those feature don't make it more difficult for those with technical knowledge to make photos. AF is probably the best example of an automatic feature that makes manual use more difficult.

I have no problem with automatic features allowing people to make better photos as long as those feature don't make it more difficult for those with technical knowledge to make photos. AF is probably the best example of an automatic feature that makes manual use more difficult.

As you do think AF makes it more difficult for you to use MF, you do have a problem with those auto features -- manufacturers seem to think features sell cameras.

So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)[/quote]

Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish. Next thing you know we will be forced to buy cameras online, or get fined.

So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)

Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish. Next thing you know we will be forced to buy cameras online, or get fined.

So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)

Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish.

Of course! You'd need to read the manual and gain the technical knowledge required to prevent the camera using Auto.